← All Phrases

“permanent establishment”

International TaxSection 9 / DTAA Article 5Section 9 / DTAA Article 51,497 judgments

The decision most relied on for permanent establishment is DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416), cited in 360 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on permanent establishment

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
292 ITR 416 · 2007 · Supreme Court
360
citing judgments

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

ONGC v. CIT
376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT
95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court
213
citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co. Inc.
399 ITR 34 · 2017 · Supreme Court
162
citing judgments

Once a transfer pricing analysis has been undertaken for an Indian associated enterprise, no further profits are attributable to it as a Permanent Establishment, thereby extinguishing the need for additional profit attribution.

Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT
24 ITR 506 · 1953 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

One cannot make a taxable profit or loss from transactions with oneself, as profit only arises from dealings with external third parties, even when transferring assets between different accounts or divisions of the same entity.

Judgments citing permanent establishment

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 381/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Global Solutions Ltd., 3. The learned AO/Hon'ble DRP, grossly erred, in alleging that Appellant has a Fixed place Permanent Establishment ("PE") for business in India, to carry on the business of sale of software products without indicating any basis for same. 3.1. Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have failed ... therefore, are bad in law. 3. Impugned order and Directions issued by Ld. DRP, grossly erred, in alleging that Appellant has a Fixed place Permanent Establishment ("PE") for business in India, to carry on the business of sale of software products without indicating any basis for same

M/S. Bank of American, N.A, Mumbai vs. The Jt DIT (I.T)3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

provisions of Article 7(3) of the DTAA, irrespective of the fact whether such expenses are incurred in the state in which the Permanent Establishment is situated or elsewhere. 10. The AO, vide order under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held ... that there is no dispute that the deduction for Head Office expenditure should be allowed to the Permanent Establishment. It was further held that Article 7 of the DTAA ensures that legitimate business expenditure is allowed to be deducted from the profits of the Permanent Establishment in a uniform manner

The Dy DIT (I.T) 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of America N.A., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

provisions of Article 7(3) of the DTAA, irrespective of the fact whether such expenses are incurred in the state in which the Permanent Establishment is situated or elsewhere. 10. The AO, vide order under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held ... that there is no dispute that the deduction for Head Office expenditure should be allowed to the Permanent Establishment. It was further held that Article 7 of the DTAA ensures that legitimate business expenditure is allowed to be deducted from the profits of the Permanent Establishment in a uniform manner

Sercel Sa, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/DDN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)

Article 5 of the India–France DTAA and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act to conclude that the assessee is having a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Therefore, the profit is attributable to the PE, whether directly or indirectly, is chargeable to tax in India. With the above observation

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

interest, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the interest arises, through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other Contracting State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the debt-claim in respect ... which the interest is paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or fixed base. In such case, the provisions of article 7 or article 14, as the case may be, shall apply." 17. From the above provisions it is clear that any interest arising to the assessee will

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

latter being taxable as business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA, provided that the foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer had a permanent establishment ["PE"] in India. Article 7- Business Profits 1. The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless ... enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable to (a) that permanent establishment

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

latter being taxable as business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA, provided that the foreign, nоп-resident supplier or manufacturer had a permanent establishment ["PE"] in India. Article 7- Business Profits 1. The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless ... enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as 8 Diebold India Private Limited aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6030/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

Ground No.2, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant, being a tax resident of Germany, having no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is eligible to claim the beneficial tax provision under the Treaty. Thus, Ld. AO has erred in taxing the income under ... Ground No.2, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant, being a tax resident of Germany, having no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is eligible to claim the beneficial tax provision under the Treaty. Thus, Ld. AO has erred in taxing the income under

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6029/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

Ground No.2, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant, being a tax resident of Germany, having no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is eligible to claim the beneficial tax provision under the Treaty. Thus, Ld. AO has erred in taxing the income under ... Ground No.2, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant, being a tax resident of Germany, having no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is eligible to claim the beneficial tax provision under the Treaty. Thus, Ld. AO has erred in taxing the income under

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT (Int Tax) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5161/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

Indian associated enterprises, namely, Owens-Corning India Pvt. Ltd. ("OCIPL"), as non- taxable in India as the assessee claims that it has neither any Permanent Establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA nor any business connection in India. The AO observed that prima facie ... dispute that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the Indo-Singapore tax treaty, that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, and that, accordingly, income earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as business profits under article 7 of the Indo Singapore tax treaty/ There

DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Madhavachari Rangachari, Mumbai

ITA 3814/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 254Section 9(1)(vii)

erred in following the decision of Hon'ble TAT for AY 2009-10 wherein the ITAT held that the assessee was not having Permanent Establishment in India without taking into account that the assessee was present in India for 121 days in FY 2010-11 relevant ... submitted that the money was received by DAR Capital Ltd. and Thurles International Ltd., which have separate legal identities and do not have any Permanent Establishment in India. The objections filed by the assessee were disposed of vide order dated 03/10/2018, and the reopening of the assessment in order

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

business of the principal in the foreign country and to bring their income to tax within India, either they needed to have a permanent establishment or the nature of the service had to be one of handling the business of the principle in the foreign country. The ld. AR submitted ... deduct or otherwise were also furnished. Furthermore, copies of agency agreement and Declaration Form from commission agents that they were not having any permanent establishment in India were furnished. Various case laws were also furnished. It was further pointed out that the assessee had been assessed under section

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

factual matrix from the decisions relied upon by the AO and emphasized that none of the agents had any business connection, fixed place, or permanent establishment in India. 103. We have gone through the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in detail. It was noted that the AO had disallowed

Mcdonald'S Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 3847/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

aforesaid MAP application, the Competent Authorities of India and the United States have reached a resolution as under: i) In relation to the alleged Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Appellant in India by the Ld. AO, the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 15% withholding tax paid by the Appellant

Mcdonald'S Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 5609/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

aforesaid MAP application, the Competent Authorities of India and the United States have reached a resolution as under: i) In relation to the alleged Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Appellant in India by the Ld. AO, the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 15% withholding tax paid by the Appellant

Mcdonald'S Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 211/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

aforesaid MAP application, the Competent Authorities of India and the United States have reached a resolution as under: i) In relation to the alleged Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Appellant in India by the Ld. AO, the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 15% withholding tax paid by the Appellant

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

dated 06.06.2018) where in it 18 FirstRand Bank Limited AY 2018-19 was held that MasterCard had a permanent establishment (PE) in India and that payments received were taxable as business income in India. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, VISA and MasterCard function as payment network processors between issuing ... that both VISA and MasterCard operate from Singapore, and the relevant services are rendered entirely outside India. As such, in the absence of a permanent establishment of these entities in India, the income is not taxable in India under Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Accordingly, the provisions

Booking.Com B.V., the Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

erred in holding that third-party accommodations in India from whom the Appellant earns commission on booking of rooms by the end-users, constitute Permanent Establishment ('PE') of the Appellant in India under Article 5 of the India Netherlands Tax Treaty ('the Tax Treaty'), without any cogent reasons, factual material ... Under Article 7 of the DTAA, business profits of the Netherlands resident are taxable in India only if the Netherlands entity has a Permanent Establishment ("PE") in India and income is attributable to such PE. 11. The assessing officer alleged that the Appellant has fixed place PE in India